I found this by accident (trying to find Diet Rite where I live) and am wondering if anyone out there has had problems consuming Splenda, or has heard anything about it being DANGEROUS. (What follows is somewhat long, and I apologize for that...there is more (believe it or not! It goes on, and on, and on....) that you can read about this at http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm) Be warned, the article makes Splenda sound like frankensweetner....

The Potential Dangers of Sucralose

There's a new artificial sweetener on the block and it is already in a wide range of products, some even sold in health food stores and manufactured by nutritionally-oriented companies. But is it proven safe? Does it provide any benefit to the public? Does it help with weight loss? Are there any long term human studies? Has it been shown to be safe for the environment? The answer to all of these questions is unfortunately a resounding NO.

The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is sold under the name Splenda™, is one of the up-and-coming "next generation" of high-intensity sugar substitutes. It is non-caloric and about 600 times sweeter than sucrose (white table sugar), although it can vary from 320 tp 1,000 times sweeter, depending on the food application. The white crystalline powder tastes like a lot like sugar, but is more intense in its sweetness.

How it is Manufactured

Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups.

History

Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large British sugar refiner. In 1980, Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest health care company, to develop sucralose. Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality Products Company in 1980 to commercialize sucralose.


In 1991, Canada became the first nation to approve the use of sucralose.


In April, 1998 the US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for sucralose to be used in a variety of food products (CLICK HERE for complete list of products using sucralose). Diet RC cola was the first US product with sucralose, introduced in May 1998.


Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review.

Safety Concerns

Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes.

Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems in rats, mice, and rabbits, such as:


Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
Enlarged liver and kidneys.
Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
Increased cecal weight
Reduced growth rate
Decreased red blood cell count
Hyperplasia of the pelvis
Extension of the pregnancy period
Aborted pregnancy
Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
Diarrhea
According to one source (Sucralose Toxicity Information Center), concerning the significant reduction in size of the thymus gland, "the manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses and that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands.


[Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. (New Scientist 23 Nov 1991, pg 13)"
A compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects, although animal studies of sucralose have not shown these effects.

According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, "Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay." The FDA aslo reported many other tests as having "inconclusive" results.

Just how few studies currently exist on sucralose is an issue. Endurance News provides the following table illustrating this fact:

Sweetener # of Studies*
Saccharin 2374
Aspartame 598
Cyclamates 459
Acesulfame-K 28
Sucralose 19

*Number of studies determined by MEDLINE search.

In terms of safety, it is not just the original substance (sucralose) that one needs to worry about. As the FDA notes, "Because sucralose may hydrolyze in some food products...the resulting hydrolysis products may also be ingested by the consumer."

Is There Any Long-Term Human Research?

None. According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its long-term safety is unknown." According to the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, the "Manufacturer's '100's of studies' (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use."

Is Sucralose Absorbed or Metabolized?

Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.

Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours.

About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans."

Chlorinated Pesticides


According to Consumers Research Magazine "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, Johnson & Johnson emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed."


Of course, this assertion about not being absorbed is complete nonsense. As shown above, a substantial amount of sucralose is absorbed, so the argument is not valid.


According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research."

Contaminants

The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:


Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
Arsenic
Triphenilphosphine Oxide
Methanol
Chlorinated Disaccharides
Chlorinated Monosaccharide
Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met.

Environmental Concerns

Despite the fact that a portion of sucralose is metabolized into some chemicals of questionable safety, a majory of the consumed sucralose is excreted unchanged in the feces and urine. While that may be good for the person using the product, it may not be so great for the environment.

Although sucralose is being flushed down toilets wherever sucralose is approved for sale, what happens to it next is simply a matter for speculation. I know of no studies showing what happens to the chemical when the raw sewage is treated and then released back into the environment.


Does it remain stabile or react with other substances to form new compounds?

Is the sucralose or any resulting chemicals safe for the environment?

How will this chemical affect aquatic life such as fish, as well as other animals?

Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supplies, just as some drugs are beginning to be found.

Of course, we will likely not know the answers to these questions for many years, if at all. One of the main reasons for this is that the FDA did not require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, because in their words, "the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment."

One study did find that sucralose is metabolized by microrganisms in both the water and soil (Labare 94). However, the ecological impact of this new chemical being introduced into the environment is unknown.

Is There a Benefit for Consumers?

According to Consumers' Research Magazine, sucralose provides some benefits for the corporations making and using it, but not for consumers. They state:

But are such foods truly beneficial and desirable? Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples, rather than turnovers; or plain, rather than sweetened, dairy foods.
They note that non-caloric artificial sweeteners are not replacing, but rather supplementing conventional sweeteners. They note that as of 1990 Americans were consuming an average of 20 pounds (sugar sweetness equivalency) of artificial sweeteners, and as consumption of sugar-substitutes has risen so too has consumption of sugar.

Does Sucralose Help with Weight Loss?

According to Consumers' Research Magazine "There is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite."

da BAT

Interesting.

Well to be honest....in the past 16 months of consuming splenda sweetened products I have to say I have less problems than I did when consuming aspartame based products.

All things in moderation. Just remember that

Hi Wombat,

My brain started to flicker when I saw this thread.
This subject has come up before. If you read right through this thread about Splenda, you will find some reassurance.

You could also check this thread about Dr Mercola! IMHO he's a bit of a whacko.

Cheers.

Roz

Well, we all know that sugar isn't good for us either, and until the day comes where I eat an entire box of Splenda in one sitting, I think the odd artificially sweetened beverage isn't gonna kill me.

And where did it give the chemical breakdowns of any of the other foods that we put in our mouths? It all sounds gross when you get down to the chemical level.

Interesting article though.

All the best!

KC

If you are really worried about the chlorine used in the process of making Splenda, hope you aren't drinking tap water. I drink untreated well water and when I eat in a restaurant in town the water tastes like they just dipped it out of a swimming pool!

Hey, I found my diet rite cola...so far nothing funky has happened *whew!*

Thanks y'all for the feedback...Roz thanks also for the thread reference. I was just a tad concerned about what this guy was saying, with this being only my 3rd day on Atkins and all. But red flags were going up too...not about the splenda, but about HIM! As if I don't have ENOUGH to worry about these days!!! Sheesh.

Back to work,
Wombat (da BAT)

PS-And no, I'm not worried about the chlorine. I live in an area where there is a national laboratory (read: plutonium and uranium) so chlorine is minor *heh*

Get lots of jokes about having babies with 20 toes on one foot and 2 heads that glow in the dark, though.

This guy obviously does not know anything about chemistry, and is just trying to scare people. I don't know why, maybe he just reacts this way to anything new, but he is wrong. Now I do not claim to know anything about chemistry either, which is why I asked my DH, who knows a great deal on the subject.

First of all, this nonsense about Splenda being chlorinated is simply not true; chlorinating something means exposing it to chlorine gas, which is not the same thing as containing molecules of chlorine. For example, salt, otherwise known as sodium chloride, contains molecules of sodium and chlorine. This does not mean that salt is chlorinated, just that it contains molecules of chlorine. And salt not just something we like; our bodies require it. On this WOE, even if you don't put salt on your food, you get it from most sources of protein.

According to the description at www.caloriecontrol.org/sucralos.html, Splenda is made from sugar; "three atoms of chlorine are used to replace three hydroxyl groups" (a.k.a. hydrogen/oxygen). This change is what makes the carbohydrates in the sugar go through our bodies without being absorbed.

So the fact that Splenda contains chlorine molecules does not make it toxic any more than salt is toxic. Do not let people like this, who are either crazy or just misinformed, scare you away from the best sweetener on the planet.

HTH

Karla